Acme

If you read the reference I gave to mad hatter syndrome you will find that the Wonderland reference is likely not in regard to mercury. mad hatter disease Also if you read my references you will see it was not skin contact but breathing the mercury vapors that facilitated the poisoning. Even if the vapors continued to be emitted from hats after manufacture, the wearer would not be in a confined space.

Do you have a reference to support your assertion that wearers suffered from mercury poisoning? I would be interested as I find only reference to makers. (see my link above to mad hatter syndrome.)

The phrase 'mad as a hatter' does not refer to folks who wore the hats, rather it refers to the folks who made the hats and were repeatedly exposed to mercury vapors.

Neither did you say it was pertinent or interesting 'til now. You -and Swansot- instead just launched into generalized criticism without so much as a mention of any specifics from the paper. It should go without saying that discussion, validation, criticism and review of the paper's specifics are what I expected. I'm not holding my breath. In my own interest I looked into as much as I could find and this blog makes some interesting points as well as garnered some specific questions and comments. ReportingClimateScience.com Here's a link given on that page to the previous report referenced. Seems the initial paper I introduced was itself corroboration and follow up study. Go figure. >> Research: Volcanic Aerosols Contribute to Pause . Addendum: As I said, I chose this thread because of Ophiolite's mention of volcanic eruptions. I should emphasize again I in no way intend to support this thread title's implication that humans aren't to blame for the increase in the rate of warming, nor do the authors of the papers I have referenced. Perhaps I should have started a separate thread in the news section. Sue me. Mods feel free to split or not as you will. Reading just now the second article I just referenced the authors make clear the implication of their work and that said work is contrary to warming denialist claims. To whit:

Whoa! I would absolutely look for corroboration of the findings of any single study. Surely peer review does not validate the results, it merely indicates that the researchers have apparently employed sound scientific practices and good logic in their study. Good grief! We all are constantly asking [crying out] for peer reviewed material so that we can judge the work on its merits, and when I give a peer-reviewed source I get a bunch of hand waving knee-jerking and no judgment or consideration of the work's actual methods or merit. Very disappointing to say the least. I thought you in particular Ophiolite would find the study interesting if not have some specific observations on it. My bad.

I see. Perhaps the article belongs in another thread; heaven knows we have enough of them. I searched the site for 'volcanoes' and looked for climate change threads with that term and as Ophiolite mentioned 'large' volcanoes here in relation to climate I settled for this one. While others may claim here or elsewhere that there is 'no warming for 15 years', the paper and article I cited do no such thing. (Nor do I.) The authors are just giving evidence that may account for the discrepancy in the rate of change predicted by models and the rate of change -say warming- that has been observed. If you have some specifics to quarrel with then by all means do so, but I think the generalized 'needs corroboration' observation is unsatisfying given this is a peer reviewed study. While the paper is behind a pay-wall, I did find some parts that are not. Auxiliary Material for Uncertainties in recent volcanic aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change

I don't understand your comment in light of the article. Perhaps you could clarify your reservations. Edit: Here's the Abstract from the original paper.

Disclaimer: I am not a global warming skeptic, denier, decryer, yada yada yada. In light of your specifying 'large' volcanic eruptions I thought you'd find this new study interesting. Small Volcanoes Underestimated in Climate Models Full paper behind pay-wall: >> Total volcanic stratospheric aerosol optical depths and implications for global climate change @ Geophysical Research Letters Given our paucity of data for 'small' submarine volcanoes -notwithstanding that they don't introduce aerosols directly into the atmosphere- it seems reasonable there are other discrepancies in the models yet to be corrected. Let the heated debate ensue.

I'm good with the speculations section proposals, it's the religion business I'm at odds with. Perhaps I'm off topic with that here and if so, my bad.

This goes to my point that this is more about making things easier for staff than for members. Yes you're volunteers, thankless job, yada yada yada, but anything worth doing is worth doing well. Nip it in the bud and an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure come to mind. One more cliché comes to mind; the proof is in the pudding.

IIRC, we've requested that of the Admins, and the software wasn't capable of it. We'll ask again, maybe an update has solved this. Danke. That was then and this is now. I'd say it's time to review the decision. Maybe, but that puts the onus on the members. Moreover it's no fix for the guests visiting and thinking of joining who on seeing not science but religion decide this place is not for them. Then too, such guests as are inclined to post religion are only encouraged by seeing a passel of preachiness in new content. Throw the lot out and the problem is solved.

Here here! More often then not when I see the preachy threads littering new content I just leave. As long as y'all insist on including a religion section, and never minding that you could just throw out threads on religion were y'all to get rid of the section, you certainly can -and should IMHO- change the forum settings so threads in the religion section are not added to the new content bar. Seems to me the big fuss is not that this stuff doesn't deserve acrimony, rather that y'all don't want to deal with it.

An Outline of Intellectual Rubbish: A Hilarious Catalogue of Organized and Individual Stupidity

That is one meaning but if you read carefully what I wrote, that meaning does not fit the context in which I used the word prosaic. I meant "b. "Matter-of-fact; straightforward." So again, matter of fact and straightforward, you offer no valid logical reasoning in this discussion. With you it is one fallacy after another and I find that irritating from anyone.

It's an impossible standard and yes I have come to expect it from you. No, the deeds don't stand your test but they do mine. I can reproduce the results by trickery and/or explain them by conventional reproducible trickery means whereas you can not describe or explain a mechanism that reproduces them by "surprise", i.e. as supernatural miracles. In prosaic terms I am operating in the real world and you operate in a dream world. As I have said before, good luck with that.

This is why I say your stance is ridiculous. Not only is there no contemporary process actually carried out such as you demand, there is not even the chance of such for Jesus' purported healings. (Let alone presuming that the causation of a healing such as you describe is attributable to faith and not something else. That's a logical fallacy and a scientifically untenable expectation.) I can't see that you have any genuine interest in any reasonable investigation here as you only present such standards as you know that no one can provide. Tsk tsk. Get a blog.

I just took the loan of The Archimedes Codex: How A Medieval Prayer Book Is Revealing The True Genius Of Antiquity's Greatest Scientist by Reviel Netz & William Noel. Looking forward to a good read.

Ridiculous double talk. It is not just me saying there is no proof, it is the agreement of the rest of us here. You are locked into a fool's errand based on a dream of a decade and half ago. Please do tell us in no uncertain terms what 'proof' you would accept, whether it supports your belief or contradicts it. Your standards of 'proof' are as disingenuous as Bobbity's. You demand a particular type of rigor that is at its core mathematical, but when it is given you claim ignorance of the rigorous method and continue on with your default claims.

There you go again. THERE IS NO PROOF! Get it? What's more I get the distinct impression you wouldn't accept proof even if there were such a thing.

This strikes me as rather disingenuous. Whenever evidence is presented that doesn't sit with your belief you reply with the equivalent of 'nuh uh'. We have well established there is no 'proof' for any of this, so continuing to ask for it is...erhm...unrealistic shall we say.

What GOCE around COMS around? Some discussion direction would be appreciated. What about this do you want to discuss.

I have a bit of time before hitting the road so I'll just take up your challenge of fact. We will take just "Jesus came from Nazareth". Not only does it presume a real Jesus, it presumes a real Nazareth. And yet, when I look into Nazareth I find that it is itself a questionable appellation. While I'm sure we can look into other sources I will just start with Wiki as my time allows. Nazareth @ Wiki So your fact is in fact not fact by your historical criteria because there is no consensus. Discuss. Edit; I just came back to revise history and just strike out a few unjustified justs.

Nehehehehe! >> Understanding the OC in GOCE and >>GOCE

But you did react to me when you said "Nobody of you (Moontanman, Acme, Ten oz) have reacted on this." As to religion on a science forum I have argued a number of times that it doesn't belong, but the powers that be think otherwise. Inasmuch as this thread is tilted more to history I have joined in. Fake or otherwise, surely you can't argue that the texts we are discussing or their consequences are not in their basis, historical.

Your criteria are all well & good and your intent seems to be to end the discussion with your criteria hammer and have the last word. However this is a discussion forum and we are enjoying our discussion. You can always complain to the staff and appeal to them to split the thread. Mean time I'm hitting the yellow brick road and off to see the wizard for the holiday. Color me on sabbatical for the next few days. Thank heaven for that miracle, eh?